Shabbat 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rava of Barnish said:

the hide of an impure animal,

can be derived by a kal va-chomer from the hair,

the wool

of goats:

For if the hair of goats,

which does not become impure through leprous afflictions,

nevertheless

renders impure through the tent of a corpse ,

as we derive the impurity of a tent from the Tabernacle, and there the curtains were made of goats’ hair,

the hide of an impure animal, which does become impure through leprous afflictions—

is it not all the more so that it should render impure through the tent of a corpse!?

And we challenge this: Once we have included the hide of an impure animal as rendering impure through the tent of a corpse,

then what of that which Rav Yosef taught: Only the hide of a pure animal was fit for sacred work—

for what halakhic purpose

did Rav Yosef teach this ruling?

Granted, if we say that the hide of an impure animal does not render impure through a tent, this is what Rav Yosef is saying: One cannot derive from the Tabernacle that every hide, even the hide of an impure animal, renders impure with the impurity of a tent, since only the hide of a pure animal was fit for the sacred work of constructing the Tabernacle, and only it is called a tent.

But now that we say that the hide of an impure animal also renders impure with the impurity of a tent, for what purpose did Rav Yosef say that only the hide of a pure animal was fit for sacred work? After all, the hide used in the Tabernacle was in fact only the hide of a pure animal. There would be no reason for Rav Yosef to come and teach us what was done in the past if it did not yield a practical halakhic teaching for the present?

And we answer: This statement of Rav Yosef

was

with regard to

tefillin

that it was stated. The passages of the tefillin must be written on the hide of a pure animal.

And we wonder: What novelty is there in this with regard to

tefillin!?

But

it is explicitly written concerning them: “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth”—

and we derive:

from

that which is

permitted in your mouth!

From here you can learn that they may be written only on the hide of a pure animal.

Rather,

when Rav Yosef’s statement was necessary, it was

for their leather—

for the compartments containing the passages of the tefillin. These cannot be excluded by the verse “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth,” since the compartments themselves are not called “Torah”; only the passages placed inside them are.

And we reject this:

But didn’t Abaye say: The shin of the tefillin,

which must be formed on the leather of the compartment of the head-tefillin as a protruding shin created by the folds of the leather—one on its right and one on its left—

is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

as well?

In addition, a knot resembling a dalet must be made in the straps of the head-tefillin, and one resembling a yod in the strap of the hand-tefillin, to complete the Name of the Lord.

And since the letter shin from the Name of the Lord is formed in the folds of the tefillin, it is obvious that it must be made from that which is permitted in your mouth.

Rather,

this is what Rav Yosef’s statement was necessary for:

to wrap

the passages of the tefillin

with their hair,

the hair of pure animals,

and to sew

the compartments

with their sinews.

And we reject this:

This too—

is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai!

Likewise, the requirement that they be made from a pure animal is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

As it was taught in a beraita: The tefillin,

both the head-tefillin and the hand-tefillin, must have their compartments

square

in their stitching, and the compartments themselves must also be square; this law

is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

as well.

And the passages shall be

wrapped with their hair,

that is, with the type of hair from which the parchment is made, namely, from a pure animal,

and sewn with their sinews.

And since this is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, we do not need Rav Yosef’s statement.

Rather, for their straps,

Rav Yosef was necessary to teach us that they must be made from a pure animal.

And we challenge this:

But didn’t Rav Yitzḥak say: The straps

must be

black—

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai?

Since the law concerning the straps is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, it is reasonable that the law requiring them to be made from a pure animal is also a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, whereas Rav Yosef did not teach this as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai!?

And we answer:

Granted that they learned

the halakha that they must be

black.

But that they must be

from pure animals—

did they learn that

as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai? Therefore Rav Yosef came to say that only the hide of a pure animal was fit for sacred work.

And since Rav Yosef’s statement was not said with regard to the Tabernacle, we still need to determine:

What conclusion was reached concerning the taḥash that existed in the days of Moses?

Rabbi Ela said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Meir would say: The taḥash that existed in the days of Moses

was a species unto itself.

And the Sages could not determine whether it was a species of wild animal,

or a species of domesticated animal.

And

that taḥash

had one horn on its forehead.

And for a brief time it happened to be available to Moses, and he made the Tabernacle from it, and

afterward it

was concealed

and no longer exists.

And we say:

From the fact that he said, “It had one horn on its forehead,”

conclude

that it was a species of

pure animal.

As Rabbi Yehuda said: The ox that Adam offered

had one horn on its forehead,

as it is stated: [Psalms 69]

“And it shall please

my praise

the Lord

more

than an ox, a bull with horns and hooves,”

which has large horns and broad hooves, and is pleasing in appearance and well fleshed. Metzudat David there.

And we challenge this: The phrase

“with horns”

implies two

horns,

does it not? The ordinary meaning of “with horns,” when said of an ox’s horn, refers to all its horns and not merely one of them. How, then, can you say that it had only one horn?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “From a horn” is written,

with the yod omitted, indicating a single horn.

And we ask:

Then derive from it—

since Adam offered an ox with one horn and it is called “an ox, a bull”—conclude

that

the taḥash, which had only one horn,

was a species of domesticated animal,

since we find a single horn only among domesticated animals and not among wild animals!?

And we answer:

Since there is the keresh, which is a species of wild animal and has only one horn, it can be said

that the taḥash

was a species of wild animal.

Mishna:

A wick made from cloth,

a piece of cloth

that one folded

and made into a wick,

but did not singe

it in fire, so that it was not scorched in order to make it burn properly .

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is impure,

with regard to the law of impurity of vessels, since a garment is a vessel, and folding it does not remove its status as a garment [since it was not singed].

And one may not light with it

a Shabbat lamp; the Gemara below explains his reason.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is pure,

since it no longer has the status of a garment capable of receiving impurity.

And one may light with it

a Shabbat lamp.

Gemara:

We inquire:

Granted, with regard to

receiving

impurity, the tannaim of the Mishna disagree:

Rabbi Eliezer holds: Folding

the wick

is not effective

to remove its status as a garment.

And its initial status,

that it had the status of a garment,

remains.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: Folding

the wick

is effective, and it nullifies

its status as a garment.

But with regard to lighting,

whether it is permitted to light with it—

over what do they disagree?

Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said, and likewise Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here,

in the Mishna:

a.

We are dealing with

a garment that is

exactly three by three

fingerbreadths,

with no excess.

b.

And we are dealing with a Festival that occurs on the eve of Shabbat,

when the law of muktzeh applies.

c.

And everyone accepts

the ruling of

Rabbi Yehuda, who said: One may stoke

an oven on a Festival

with whole vessels,

that are intact,

but one may not stoke it with broken vessels

that broke on the Festival, because they are “born” on the Festival. At the beginning of the Festival they were whole vessels, and only on the Festival did the status of their having become broken vessels “come into being”; therefore they are forbidden to move because of muktzeh [although an ordinary piece of wood may be moved for the purpose of fueling a fire] .

d.

And everyone accepts

the ruling

of Ulla.

For Ulla said: One who lights

a Shabbat lamp

must light

without withdrawing his hand until the flame has taken hold of

most

of the wick

that protrudes

outside the lamp .

And they disagree over this:

Rabbi Eliezer holds: Folding

the garment

is not effective

to remove its status as a garment.

And once he has lit a little of it

and reduced it below its measure [it had been exactly three fingerbreadths]—

it becomes

now

a broken vessel,

since anything less than three fingerbreadths is not a vessel.

And

from then on,

when he lights

the rest of the wick with his hands so that the flame will take hold of most of the protruding portion—

he is lighting with a broken vessel!

And one may not stoke a fire with broken vessels. This is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that one may not light with a wick made from cloth that was folded but not singed.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: Folding is effective

to remove the wick’s status as a garment,

and it does not have the status of a vessel

at the time of lighting [and this is referring to a wick folded on the eve of the Festival, since one may not make a wick on the Festival, Rashi].

And when he lights—

he is simply lighting with wood

. וזוהי סברת רבי עקיבא דפתילת הבגד שקפלה מדליקין בה]][and this wood had already had the status of wood since the eve of the Festival, so the prohibition of broken vessels that broke on the Festival does not apply to it]. This is Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning: One may light with a wick made from cloth that was folded.

Rav Yosef said: This is the matter that I had learned,

for I had learned from my teachers a Mishna concerning a measure of

exactly three by three, and I did not know for what halakhic purpose

it had been stated. [For with regard to receiving impurity, if it were more than three, it would certainly become impure.]

And now I know that this matter was stated with regard to lighting a wick, where the exact measure is specifically relevant, since by lighting it one removes its status as a vessel.

And we infer:

And from the fact that Rav Adda bar Ahava explains

and establishes the Mishna

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who said that one may stoke a fire with vessels but not with broken vessels—

conclude: He holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And we ask:

But did Rav Adda bar Ahava really say this?